I have presented hard evidence.
Your right, as to the results, lighttpd can achieve approx. 10MB
lesser ram usage than apache. For a 64MB ram system as discussed in
this thread this is an important matter to squeeze every KB out of the
usage.
-Thadeus
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 1:23 AM, John He
You need to change your tone of voice John.
If anyone has been have crying foul, and won't accept test results. It is you.
I have shown you a valid apache configuration that is comparable to
lighttpd, for the sake of this thread it is important to show that
apache can too have a low memory footpr
As another added note.I can further reduce my memory footprint by
using wsgi 3.X.
3.X has new directives, one called LazyInitialization, which does not
initialize the python interpreter when apache starts, only when a
request to the wsgi process is made.
Along with this is a directive that tells
If the only discussion here is tight vps, then postgresql results
should not even come into matter in your bottom line. Taking out 20MB
for the postgres process, and add 5 mb for a sqlite in the
python/web2py process, thats an extra 15 mb you can play around with.
Also, configuring apache to run on
Apache: 6360
web2py: 21244
Postgres: 26693
Total of 27MB, during peak hours of this site. PostgreSQL is
negligible since you can pick your database.
-Thadeus
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Thadeus Burgess wrote:
> ww-data 3950 0.0 1.2 145288 6360 ? S 22:49 0:00
> /usr/sbi
Happy ?
ps aux | grep "apache" && ps aux | grep "wsgi" && ps aux | grep
"postgres" && ps aux | grep "python"
USER PID %CPU %MEMVSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND
root 3878 0.6 1.4 145136 7528 ?Ss 22:49 0:00
/usr/sbin/apache2 -k start
www-data 3950 0.0 1.2
You would have a similar memory footprint running apache/mod_wsgi.
Mind you I am also running Ruby (mod_passenger) as well as mod_wsgi,
so the memory usage is a "tiny" bit higher because of the extra ruby
processes.
free -m
total used free sharedbuffers cached
I was reviewing this threadand wow! very nice explanation and
presentation of playing video streaming via web2py.
Many thanks John, your thoughts looks like very interesting.
Alex
El 14/02/2010 3:12, John Heenan escribió:
Thanks for your comments also.
Yes .flv and other video files will p
I don't see how you are running any system on 64MB (unless it is DOS
or some really really old linux version... maybe gentoo... maybe. )
You won't be able to run web2py on this system. Either upgrade the
system or get a shared hosting service.
-Thadeus
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:18 PM, mdipi
im us this script for check the memory usage of my aplications ... checkit...
http://gist.github.com/252585
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:34 AM, raven wrote:
> This sounds interesting.
>
> Instead of hacking around in import_all.py, I wonder if someone who
> know what's what, could provide a stripp
You might try commenting out the lines in import_all.py if you're
running the source version. That way it doesn't load every module.
-tim
On 2/10/2010 9:06 PM, raven wrote:
Here are the details of memory usage when web2py is NOT running
top - 21:58:38 up 11:57, 2 users, load average: 0.00,
You mean 64MB, not 64K, I hope.
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:30 PM, raven wrote:
> It seems that everyone is running with Apache and gobs of memory
> available. They cannot really get their heads around running web2py
> out of the box in 64K.
>
> So let me explain why this is important.
>
> When
12 matches
Mail list logo
